Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date

[Mikeoxenormous]

If a legal marriage contract MUST be recognized amongst all 50 states, then a legal concealed carry permit MUST be recognized amongst all 50 states, that is the equal protection law. Liberals open Pandora's box, yet they don't want to deal with the repercussions of doing it. As for the LBGTQWXYZ crowd, they can always go to CUBA, where they will be accepted with open arms, right?

 

[Skylar]

Why aren't children consulted about divorce or remarriage?

Because their implied share of the marriage contract is "mother & father".

Except that they aren't. No court nor law recognizes children as 'implied parties' in the marriage of their parents. Nor 'explicit parties', nor 'third party beneficiaries'. Nor have you ever been able to quote any such law or court ruling recognizing children as having such status.

You made all that up, pulled sideways out of your ass. Consequently, none of it will have the slightest relevance in any court case.

And, in divorce, states reluctantly grant them but always manage to strive to their limit to keep the kids in contact with both mother and father...essentially not granting a full divorce until the children are of age. Remarriage, should it be normal, providing both a mother and father, fits their contractual enjoyment also. So there's no legal conflict.

That's all pseudo-legal gibberish. Virtually every state will grant a divorce for any reason. And children get absolutely no say in it as they aren't parties to the marriage. A full divorce is granted upon request.

Essentially, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Pseudo-legal gibberish is what Obergefell is. But they've already decided on New York vs Ferber: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

 

[Skylar]

Pseudo-legal gibberish is what Obergefell is.

Says you citing yourself. In any contest between the Supreme Court and you citing you.....there is always the same winner:

Not you.

But they've already decided on New York vs Ferber: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Ferber is a case about child pornography. Ferber never so much as mentions marriage. Let alone find that same sex marriage hurts kids.

That's just your pseudo-legal gibberish. Which again, is irrelevant to the outcome of any case.

 

[Coyote]

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says you can not treat gays as you would any other people. Isn't it Christians that always say "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Somehow, the "love" part has gone missing in this current onslaught of legislation legalizing open discrimmination of LGBT people.

There is nothing in Christian Doctrine that says that Christians have to commit a sin to make gays comfortable either.

What sin, specifically, are they committing?

Approving of homosexuality and participating in an event celebrating homosexuality.

Serving z

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says you can not treat gays as you would any other people. Isn't it Christians that always say "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Somehow, the "love" part has gone missing in this current onslaught of legislation legalizing open discrimmination of LGBT people.

There is nothing in Christian Doctrine that says that Christians have to commit a sin to make gays comfortable either.

What sin, specifically, are they committing?

Approving of homosexuality and participating in an event celebrating homosexuality.

Serving a customer isn't Approving or celebrating anything.

 

[Silhouette]

Serving a customer isn't Approving or celebrating anything.

Participating in promoting a gay marriage by building a component of it is forbidden to Christians from the general commandment for them to ACTIVELY deny the encroachment of any homosexual subculture upon any Christian culture in which they live...or any human establishment at all. Read Jude 1 from the New Testament. Marriage is the hub of any culture. For a Christian to participate in ANY part of it, including providing services to it, would be the same as them going up to God and spitting in his face.

 

[Coyote]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says you can not treat gays as you would any other people. Isn't it Christians that always say "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Somehow, the "love" part has gone missing in this current onslaught of legislation legalizing open discrimmination of LGBT people.

Current discrimination? All this is very very recent and even now only public accomodation laws have forced Muslims, Jews, Christians or anyone that has strong moral feelings about genders (like almost all Democrats did one election cycle ago). So now we are supposed to believe it was this way since say one and Christians have imposed draconian laws of bigotry?

Nor do you really understand their position, which shouldn't need a religious opt out anyway. No one that I've heard has denied selling a homosexual/transgender/whatever any food or service apart from something gay related. If someone doesn't want to make a gay themed banner at their sign shop that's their right, unless PA forces them to do so. There's nothing in Christianity that forces people to perform services against their will so you have quite a double standard there.

Again, and I know it's VERY hard, relationships are not citizens. Relationships do not have rights enumerated in the Constitution. That includes polygamy, incest or whatever comes next.

I know it's very hard but you should read the bill, it is very broad and would indeed legitimize many of the things you claim people are not calling for as well as overriding any municipal laws offering any protections from any sort discrimmination for LGBT citizans.

 

[Coyote]

Serving a customer isn't Approving or celebrating anything.

Participating in promoting a gay marriage by building a component of it is forbidden to Christians from the general commandment for them to ACTIVELY deny the encroachment of any homosexual subculture upon any Christian culture in which they live...or any human establishment at all. Read Jude 1 from the New Testament. Marriage is the hub of any culture. For a Christian to participate in ANY part of it, including providing services to it, would be the same as them going up to God and spitting in his face.

Nowhere in the NT is it prohibited.

 

[Silhouette]

I know it's very hard but you should read the bill, it is very broad and would indeed legitimize many of the things you claim people are not calling for as well as overriding any municipal laws offering any protections from any sort discrimmination for LGBT citizans.

What Mississippi is doing of course is forcing an LGBT person to challenge the law and take it to the US Supreme Court, ultimately. Because at some point several things will be revealed in the process:

1. How the premise for Obergefell was false: behaviors are not and cannot be "race, gender or country of origin", although they may certainly be religion and..

2. One religion cannot force another to abide by its dogma or promote it in any way.

3. How if sexual orientation now gets some special unspoken or unwritten protections in the Constitution, all of them do, not just one special Court pet favorite. So, polyamory (the attraction to multiple partners-and polygamy marriage) and incest (the attraction to blood relatives and marriage) are as legal as gay marriage is today; since the court found in Obergefell that states may not restrict marriage based on sexual orientation.

1, 2, & 3 will at that point become very problematic for the Church of LGBT's quest to legally force Christians to bow at their altar.

 

[Coyote]

Why aren't children consulted about divorce or remarriage?

Because their implied share of the marriage contract is "mother & father". And, in divorce, states reluctantly grant them but always manage to strive to their limit to keep the kids in contact with both mother and father...essentially not granting a full divorce until the children are of age. Remarriage, should it be normal, providing both a mother and father, fits their contractual enjoyment also. So there's no legal conflict.

Gay marriage, in contrast, strips children even of the hope of EVER having either a mother or father for life, putting them at a disadvantage to their peers and suffering mentally.

Wouldn't divorce be considered spitting in the face of God? How can divorce and remarriage be participated in or promoted by Christians?

 

[rightwinger]

Why aren't children consulted about divorce or remarriage?

Because their implied share of the marriage contract is "mother & father". And, in divorce, states reluctantly grant them but always manage to strive to their limit to keep the kids in contact with both mother and father...essentially not granting a full divorce until the children are of age. Remarriage, should it be normal, providing both a mother and father, fits their contractual enjoyment also. So there's no legal conflict.

Gay marriage, in contrast, strips children even of the hope of EVER having either a mother or father for life, putting them at a disadvantage to their peers and suffering mentally.

Wouldn't divorce be considered spitting in the face of God? How can divorce and remarriage be participated in or promoted by Christians?

Divorce does more harm to children than gay marriage ever will

 

[Silhouette]

On the contrary, divorce is often reluctantly granted on behalf of the children who can no longer tolerate a toxic home environment.. Bad marriages, not divorce, are what harms children in the end..

Wouldn't divorce be considered spitting in the face of God? How can divorce and remarriage be participated in or promoted by Christians?

There are different levels of sin. Mortal being the worst.

Getting divorced doesn't ruin the fabric of marriage because if they remarry, then all is well. So even though it's supposed to be "for life" it ruins no structural matrix of God's to remarry.

However, gender blending destroys the matrix of the very concrete roles of "man" and "woman" within a given society. If you accept the Larger Plan for men is for them to learn lessons while they are here, one of the chief of those lessons is how to get along with a different creature, then blending the two together in homosexuality or in transgenderism is not just a venial sin, it waters down the entire purpose for "male" and "female" having intrinsic difference. THAT is the mortal sin more than where one sticks one's dick. It is the assault on the matrix God created for human learning and testing.

If you are unhappy being a man and having only women to choose from, the idea of rejecting women completely and being gay is an affront to your lessons. You were born a male to HAVE to learn how to get along with women. Shirking that is shirking the very purpose for which you were born. Getting divorced from one woman and then marrying another isn't an affront to that lesson. But it may dampen another. Still though, as many men have found, they can divorce but the "same" woman they always seem to keep finding again until they learn how to get along. If men are with men, they'd always agree and if they didn't, they'd try to imitate those classic roles in order to work out their issues. That's why you almost always see in gay couples one femme and one butch component; it's always there, even if subtle.

Tampering with the matrix is a big deal, much more than venial sins committed within a still-preserved matrix. That's why Jude 1 gives such a dire warning of eternal banishment to hell for any Christian that not only plays along with the homosexual spread, but also who refuses to vigorously fight against it. If they remain passive and let it happen, they too will be burning in the fires of hell for eternity.

In short, pooping in the house of God is a bad deal. But bulldozing it down is much MUCH worse..

 

[Coyote]

I know it's very hard but you should read the bill, it is very broad and would indeed legitimize many of the things you claim people are not calling for as well as overriding any municipal laws offering any protections from any sort discrimmination for LGBT citizans.

What Mississippi is doing of course is forcing an LGBT person to challenge the law and take it to the US Supreme Court, ultimately. Because at some point several things will be revealed in the process:

1. How the premise for Obergefell was false: behaviors are not and cannot be "race, gender or country of origin", although they may certainly be religion and..

Behaviors are not the issue here. There is considerable evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired.

2. One religion cannot force another to abide by its dogma or promote it in any way.

Of course not, and no religious institution should be forced to conduct a marriage that
violates their doctrine.

3. How if sexual orientation now gets some special unspoken or unwritten protections in the Constitution, all of them do, not just one special Court pet favorite. So, polyamory (the attraction to multiple partners-and polygamy marriage) and incest (the attraction to blood relatives and marriage) are as legal as gay marriage is today; since the court found in Obergefell that states may not restrict marriage based on sexual orientation.

They get the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

1, 2, & 3 will at that point become very problematic for the Church of LGBT's quest to legally force Christians to bow at their altar.

No one is forcing Christians to do anything more than to follow the same nondiscrimmination laws that protect those Christians as well.

 

[Silhouette]

Behaviors are not the issue here. There is considerable evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired.


.

Yes, like drug addiction and bulimia & other eating disorders. Once the malleable young brain is acclimated to a behavior, it cements itself that way. But that doesn't mean you mainstream aberrant behaviors!

Read more here. It tells of how sexual behaviors are conditioned first through environmental pressures then repetition and how sexuality can be passed down generation to generation. This makes it extra incumbent upon us with young impressionable eyes watching to maintain our "norms" accordingly. Have you seen the statistics on HIV in boys ages 13-24 skyrocketing in recent years? Monkey see, monkey do...then...do forever...

http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno, Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

2008-2010 was the really big push to normalize gay behavior and the beginning of very aggressive outreach programs in schools to normalize views on gay behaviors... Stunning correlation eh? Not really, if you understand the basic science behind conditioning and human social behaviors..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Mississippi just got smacked down on their anti gay adoption law! HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

From your own post which you linked:

U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan issued a preliminary injunction against the ban, citing the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide last summer. The injunction blocks Mississippi from enforcing its 16-year-old anti-gay adoption law.

The Supreme Court ruling “foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage,” Jordan wrote. “It also seems highly unlikely that the same court that held a state cannot ban gay marriage because it would deny benefits — expressly including the right to adopt — would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit.”

The issue will be appealed. Gay adoption strips children of their former right to both a mother and father per the marriage contract. They as a demographic who share in marriage, were not consulted, nor had representation in this radical change to marriage where they are concerned.. New York v Ferber...

From Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell: Obergefell v Hodges Same-sex Marriage at SCOTUS

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See,
e.g., Pierce
v.
Society of Sisters
, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and pre-dictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See
Windsor supra,
at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry isless meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Prece-dent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why aren't children consulted about divorce or remarriage?

Because their implied share of the marriage contract is "mother & father". And, in divorce, states reluctantly grant them but always manage to strive to their limit to keep the kids in contact with both mother and father...essentially not granting a full divorce until the children are of age. Remarriage, should it be normal, providing both a mother and father, fits their contractual enjoyment also. So there's no legal conflict.

Gay marriage, in contrast, strips children even of the hope of EVER having either a mother or father for life, putting them at a disadvantage to their peers and suffering mentally.

From the Judges ruling in Mississippi. Try not to choke:

Federal judge blocks 'unconstitutional' Mississippi adoption ban
The Supreme Court ruling “foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage,” Jordan wrote, according to The Huffington Post. “It also seems highly unlikely that the same court that held a state cannot ban gay marriage because it would deny benefits — expressly including the right to adopt — would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit.”

“Two sets of our clients have waited many (almost 9 and 16) years to become legal parents to the children they have loved and cared for since birth,” Roberta Kaplan, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We hope that it should finally be clear that discrimination against gay people simply because they are gay violates the Constitution in all 50 states, including Mississippi.”

The Human Rights Campaign’s Mississippi state director Rob Hill also praised the ruling.

“This welcome decision affirms that qualified same-sex couples in Mississippi seeking to become adoptive or foster parents are entitled to equal treatment under the law, and commits to the well-being of children in our state who need loving homes,” he said in a statement. “Judge Jordan has repudiated reprehensible efforts by our elected leaders to deny legal rights to our families. They are on the wrong side of history, and today’s decision confirms, yet again, that they are also on the wrong side of the law.”

 

[Coyote]

Behaviors are not the issue here. There is considerable evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired.


.

Yes, like drug addiction and bulimia & other eating disorders. Once the malleable young brain is acclimated to a behavior, it cements itself that way. But that doesn't mean you mainstream aberrant behaviors!

Read more here. It tells of how sexual behaviors are conditioned first through environmental pressures then repetition and how sexuality can be passed down generation to generation. This makes it extra incumbent upon us with young impressionable eyes watching to maintain our "norms" accordingly. Have you seen the statistics on HIV in boys ages 13-24 skyrocketing in recent years? Monkey see, monkey do...then...do forever...

http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno, Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

2008-2010 was the really big push to normalize gay behavior and the beginning of very aggressive outreach programs in schools to normalize views on gay behaviors... Stunning correlation eh? Not really, if you understand the basic science behind conditioning and human social behaviors..

This article has nothing to do with sexual orientation, only behavior, including behavior common to both hetero and homosexuals and many other mammels.

There is no argument that sexual behavior has a learned component.

Sexual orientation is something different.

Gay brains are hard-wired at birth

 

[Silhouette]

http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno, Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada

This article has nothing to do with sexual orientation, only behavior, including behavior common to both hetero and homosexuals and many other mammels...There is no argument that sexual behavior has a learned component...Sexual orientation is something different...

"Something different".. but "what" you cannot say, because there's no science to support that assertion. Perhaps you shouldn't skim the article and read it instead. Particularly near the end where it discusses how sexual behavior is learned and humans are not immune from that.

Also, the article cites over 300 peer-reviewed studies that support the title. May want to read the title again too..

 

[Coyote]

http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno, Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada

This article has nothing to do with sexual orientation, only behavior, including behavior common to both hetero and homosexuals and many other mammels...There is no argument that sexual behavior has a learned component...Sexual orientation is something different...

"Something different".. but "what" you cannot say, because there's no science to support that assertion. Perhaps you shouldn't skim the article and read it instead. Particularly near the end where it discusses how sexual behavior is learned and humans are not immune from that.

Also, the article cites over 300 peer-reviewed studies that support the title. May want to read the title again too..

Or, perhaps...you should read some more recent studies....

 

[Coyote]

Frankly - what is wrong with an act of love between two consenting adults?